Posted on 12/27/2008 5:23:50 AM PST by marktwain
A woman's 80-year-old grandfather fatally shot her estranged husband after he tried to take their two children from the grandparents' house, Conroe police said Saturday.
==========cut======================
According to police, Boudreaux's estranged wife and children have been living with her grandparents for about five months. When Boudreaux arrived Friday and tried to take the children, the grandfather intervened and ordered him to leave. Boudreaux refused, pushing the man out of the way, the statement said. The grandfather then allegedly retrieved a revolver from another room and placed it in his back pocket before again advising Boudreaux, who was aware the older man had a gun, to leave, police said.
As the two left the home out to the driveway, Boudreaux again pushed the older man and allegedly struck him in the chest area where he recently had a pacemaker inserted, police said. Fearing for his life, police said the older man then allegedly shot Boudreaux once, killing him.
(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...
“Other than the assertions of the the person who shot him and that man’s daughter what is the evidence that the man who was killed was in any way violent? Most abusers don’t just go off once. There is a history.”
As a disinterested party, I simply do not know enough to make a judgment here.
I do know that domestic situations are some of the hardest in which to determine right and wrong.
None of your business. Giving personal information online is as stupid as taking firearms advice from a political poster. You COULD answer the question, WHAT AM I ADVOCATING? Instead, you change the subject. If anyone threatens my life or the life of someone I love, I will 1)aim for center mass and 2)shoot until my weapon is empty. What problem do you have with that?
Have you ever heard of the Castle Doctrine? Does your state have it? How many shots does it allow? Is that even relevant? Hello? How stupid are you?
Well, check with RG there, s/he will tell you something different. I will shoot all the bullets in the weapon, whether it's a two-shot derringer, 5-shot revolver, or X-shot automatic.
Shooter 2.5 posted:
“No instructor, adviser or trainer has ever condoned the type of action you are advocating. None. No school has ever advocated shooting after the threat is over. Where did you go to this school and what was it’s name?”
marktwain replied:
I did not read that Judith Anne implied anything different than what you are saying is correct. As I have stated before, a revolver can be emptied before you even know what the effect of the first shot is.
As an instructor, I advise my students not to wait to determine if the first shot is effective, but to keep shooting until the threat is down and no longer a threat.
Thank you.
I really enjoyed your "About" (Profile) page, by the way.
You are nothing. LOL
Before or after the castle doctrine laws?
It is customary to ping a person when you speak ill of them. But I’ll give you a break since it’s obvious that senility has taken hold of you.
After.
It’s obvious you have never had an instuctor. You answered a question with another question and still don’t understand your legal limitations. Get real training from a real school before you pick up a gun.
Since you started with the childish insults, this exchange is over.
marktwain replies:
This is dangerous ground. As far as I know, it is unlawful to shoot after the threat is neutralized. It often takes many shots to neutralize the threat, and people often empty their guns before it becomes apparent that the threat is neutralized.
The castle doctrine does not allow a person to execute a wounded attacker when they are lying helpless and unconscious on the ground. Some people might insinuate that this is what you are implying.
I do not think that is what you mean at all.
Everyone is getting overheated in this discussion when there is no need for it.
I suggest everyone take a breather and refrain from name calling. I do not see anyone on this discussion who is acting irresponsibly or suggesting irresponsible actions.
Shooter, you accuse me of doing what YOU did. You answred my question by demanding to know personal information. You’re nuts if you think anybody would answer that queston.
I’m satisfied that anyone who reads this thread will understand what happened, and that you do not know the Castle doctrine.
So, you want to know how many bullets can someone legally shoot in self-protection? What a stupid question.
Thanks. I don’t know a single firearms person who advocates emptying out with no regard to the threat.
I couldn’t talk to Kalishnikov because I don’t speak Russian. Cooper was a hardnosed person and not that much fun being around. Aagaard was a gentleman. Applegate was a real fun guy to be around. I miss seeing him at the SHOT shows. My kid is finally out of the Marines. That’s my sister piloting the ultralight.
I am on a program to finally start using the Mateba and not keeping it as safe queen. I thought I couldn’t afford to use it but I have to start having fun with what I have.
marktwain, I did not state that “my CCW instructor (anLEO) etc.” I quoted someone else who did.
This is the stupidest thread on the forum.
Where I live, we have a so-called "stand your ground" law that allows the use of deadly force to defend oneself anyplace the defender has a "right" to be. There is no duty to retreat.
Under our Castle Doctrine, a person who discovers an intruder in their dwelling is lawfully entitled to use deadly force if they feel threatened, but they are still only allowed to use the amount of force necessary to stop the threat. Subsequent shots after there is no longer a threat are still unlawful even within one's own dwelling.
At least that's the way I understood it from an instructor who seemed to take great pains to make that particular issue clear.
Ever met or spent time around Ayoob?
marktwain replies:
Judith Anne, I apologize. I understood the above, and I posted the quote from your response as part of the discussion. I see that it would be easily implied from my post that you wrote the above instead of merely quoting it in your post.
From my link above:
EFFERSON CITY | The Missouri House voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to approve legislation that would give homeowners and drivers wide discretion in the use of deadly force against intruders. The measure would give people immunity from criminal and civil actions for killing or injuring someone in self-defense, in defense of other people or in defense of property. It also would create a new section of law to allow the use of deadly force against anyone who illegally and forcibly entered a dwelling or a vehicle if the owner “had reason to believe” that a crime would be committed. Supporters said the bill would give the public new tools to stop home invasions, burglaries and carjackings. It also would stop frivolous lawsuits against residents by criminals who are injured during the commission of a crime. In the past, critics said the bill would give people the right to shoot first and ask questions later. They had worried that the bill could give legal cover to criminals who lured their victims to a house to gun them down. But lawmakers voiced few criticisms Tuesday, apparently resigned to the bill’s wide support among rural lawmakers and some members from high-crime urban areas. Instead, House members tinkered with the language, and they allowed retired police officers to obtain permits to carry concealed weapons without the weapons training required of other applicants. Perhaps the most significant change would give the Highway Patrol access to records of a person’s treatment by mental health facilities or programs. Use of the information would be limited to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which determines whether a person is eligible to buy a gun. The background check system would receive information on both voluntary and involuntary mental health treatment. “This would close a loophole (that was exposed) at Virginia Tech,” said Rep. Brian Munzlinger, a Williamstown Republican who proposed the change. He was referring to the mentally ill student who legally bought guns in Virginia, then went on a rampage in which he killed 32 people before killing himself. Rep. Jim Whorton, a Trenton Democrat, suggested allowing lawmakers with more than six years of experience to obtain concealed weapons permits without going through the required training. He said the law already exempts judges, probation and parole officers and people who serve legal papers, among others. Several speakers questioned whether six years in the legislature qualified a person to handle a gun. The House defeated Whorton’s amendment on a voice vote. To reach Kit Wagar, call (816) 234-4440 or send e-mail to kwagar@kcstar.com. TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Politics/Elections; Click to Add Topic KEYWORDS: banglist; castledoctrine; Click to Add Keyword [ Report Abuse | Bookmark ] Perhaps the most significant change would give the Highway Patrol access to records of a person’s treatment by mental health facilities or programs. Use of the information would be limited to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which determines whether a person is eligible to buy a gun. The background check system would receive information on both voluntary and involuntary mental health treatment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.